Posted on 11/01/2004 5:23:42 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
(CNSNews.com) - A Cook County Judge on Friday ruled against a Wilmette man who was arrested after shooting and wounding a home invader in late 2003.
The homeowner, Hale DeMar, was arrested on charges of violating Wilmette's ban on handgun ownership, prompting a backlash against local ordinances that prevent individuals from possessing guns to defend their own homes. DeMar was fined $750 for possessing two handguns.
DeMar went to court, arguing that the charges against him should be dismissed because they violated his 14th Amendment (equal protection) rights.
But on Friday, Judge Thaddeus Machnik rejected DeMar's effort to have the Wilmette ordinance declared unconstitutional.
"In penning his decision in the DeMar case, Judge Machnik demonstrated that the courts continue to cling to their cockeyed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment," said ISRA Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. "This is pretty much what we expected out of Judge Machnik."
Pearson said the ISRA will now redouble its efforts to pass firearm preemption legislation -- "so that municipalities are no longer free to bully citizens who wish only to protect their homes and families from predatory criminals."
Following DeMar's arrest last year, the Illinois General Assembly passed a homeowner protection bill, which Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a staunch supporter of gun control, later vetoed.
The bill is now awaiting an override vote, which will happen when the General Assembly convenes its veto session this November.
The man who broke into DeMar's home -- twice -- pleaded guilty to burglary and is now serving a seven-year prison term, press reports said.
Scale of justice lop-sided here...shame on the judge
I don't think so. Equal protection has been used historically in challenges to varying voting requirements. His argument is that if some guy living out in, say, Cairo, IL can have a handgun, he should be able to have one, too.
Look for more of this if Kerry gets in.
I assume this is an attempt at humor.
There is nothing at the federal level which speaks of a "wall" separating "church and state" but just let that same town try to put a 10 Commandments plaque in front of its courthouse...
--Boris
Guns don't kill people. Charles Bronson does.
Unless the words "the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is interpreted to mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is how vigilantiism gets started. The people in the USA will only take so much of judges who legislate and legislators who deny the people their rights.
"No good deed goes unpunished."
Sorry, Drammach, correct amendment. This was a local law he was fighting, not a federal one. The second amendment only applies to the federal government.
The 14th amendment applies due process to the states -- he's saying that Wilmette's laws violate his RKBA, a right so fundamental to liberty, that the states must also protect it. The USSC has yet to hear such a case and, until then, the second amendment only applies to the feds.
His RKBA is protected by the Illinois state constitution. Because of home rule, individual cities (like Chicago, Morton Grove, and Wilmette) may pass their own gun laws (as long as the laws don't violate the Illinois state constitution).
These laws do not.
How much is Sarah Brady paying you?
"Due process" rather than "P&I".
By all means, please correct me where I'm wrong. I'm willing to read what you have to post.
But post something.
I bet the judge has a gun in his house and I bet he would use it in a heartbeat.
Better yet publicize their anti-gun attitudes and home addresses for those who might be interested. Let's do Machnik first.
A valid argument in most states. But Illinois has "home rule" which allows a city to write its own laws, provided those laws remain in the framework of the state constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This means We do this. Us. The civilians are telling government how they are going to run things. Period.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This says it applies everywhere within the US. Period. A Law being made in Chicago falls under the "Laws of the United States". They are rightfully limited under the "Suprememe Law of the Land" clause. Despite your Dredd Scott racism inspired court rulings.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
This says that the States ratified this and agree to all of it. Including ceeding certain legislative powers to the Federal Government and accepting the strictures prohibiting action that violated the above.
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
This says that some in the States didn't feel that there were enough protections for certain Rights they felt all free men needed to stay Free. That no one, at any level of government, should have power to deny these Rights and that placing such protections at the highest levels of government would gaurentee these Rights for ALL citizens of the United States.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This says, that because an armed citizenry is a Free citizenry, that the Right to Defend yourself and the weapons necessary to do so can never legally be limited, regulated out of existance, or denied. Period. No mention of "only in certain States" or "accept in homerule cities". This applies EVERYWHERE the US FedGov has power. It is a basic Right of a citizen. Period.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Because of racist scum, this was necessary to get the idea through some thickened skulls that these PROTECTED Rights apply to EVERYONE who is a citizen of the US. Period. "No State shall make of enforce any law" is every bit as unabiguous as "shall not be infringed". Each State has to ratify these Amendments, so saying "homerule" provisions or "incorperation" fictions apply are outright LIES. Why would a State ratify an Amendment saying "No State shall make or enforce a law" then turn around and violate that Amendment right off the bat?
No RP, you have an agenda here. It is clear to most of us thta you are a shill. A troll. And a waste of time.
All the guy had to do was give the judge the secret masonic hand signal. But seriously to become a judge he had to swear to up holding the constitution and by not giving the home owner his 14th amendment rights this judge must be disbarred.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.